Don't suppress dissent, says the Australian

For those of you who didn't hear it, Adam Spencer, a science reporter for the ABC and a prominent defender of the Australian Skeptics, 'interviewed' Lord Monckton last week. Lord Monckton has been 'on the nose' because he questions whether or not human activities are causing global warming. He has also gotten into trouble for comparing Ross Garnaut, Australia's Chief Climate Change Advisor, to a fascist whilst standing in front of a photo displaying a swastika - an ill-advised statement that he apologised for without reservation.

During the interview, Adam Spencer became increasingly incensed at Lord Monckton because he disagreed with his views and eventually hung up on him, continuing a rant against him and his ideas. He later called Lord Monckton back to see if they could continue the interview, but Monckton declined.

Strange. I always thought that interviewers invited guests onto their shows because they felt that their audience might be interested in hearing what the interviewee had to say? If Adam Spencer was so opposed to Lord Monckton's ideas as to not even want to hear them, why did he even invite Monckton to come onto his show?

The sound of one hand clapping

Not only has Monckton been treated badly by the Australian media, but campaigns have been set up to force the venues where he was scheduled to speak to cancel at the last minute (I know what THAT is like - remember our seminars in Adelaide and Perth which needed to find new homes at the last minutes because of these same sorts of activities?). This is a sure sign that those who want to push their climate change agendas are scared of allowing open debate on the issue just like those who want us all to submit to an unlimited number of vaccines without our right to say no are scared of debate on that issue.

Amazing that the whole country wants to repudiate someone because they have made a statement such as this (which as a Jew myself, I also take offence to) and yet, they say  nothing whatsoever about those who are criticising (and worse) those who want to question a firmly held belief in climate change (sound familiar? - just replace the words vaccination or fluoride for global warming and you will start to see where this is headed).

Wishing the opposition dead?

Like Richard Glover, another supporter of the Australian Skeptics who has a regular column in the Sydney Morning Herald. He said that, "Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies." Perhaps Richard would like to suggest that this tattoo take the shape of a Star of David like that other famous individual who wanted people who thought differently from the mainstream to be identified?

Or Jill Singer, whose relationship with the Australian Skeptics is unknown to me at present. She wrote an article in the Herald Sun newspaper in which she recommends that climate change sceptics should perform a stunt to prove how strong their belief systems are.  "Really? I'm prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics - put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas - say, carbon monoxide. You wouldn't see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing."

I remember a day when debate did not involve wishing those who disagreed with you dead. Ahhh, the good old days!

When journalists and public figures are so scared of the public knowing both sides of an issue, it is time for everyone to start taking a closer look at what it is they're trying to cover up.

To clarify, I do not consider myself to be a climate change sceptic. I have not studied this issue thoroughly nor do I want to do so - there just isn't enough time in the day. My personal belief is that our lifestyles are unsustainable and whether the world warms up or not, we are headed down a slippery slope towards certain destruction if we don't stop consuming more than the Earth can provide. That belief has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and everything to do with the amount of money being earned by the companies that are running this debate.

What made me want to write about this issue is an editorial in this weekend's Australian newspaper. This excellent piece is talking about the dangers of one sided debates and the suppression of dissent. The very thing that Dr Brian Martin discussed in his article, Debating Vaccination.

Yet this view is being expressed by a newspaper that will not cover the other side of the vaccination issue, but obviously doesn't see what it does as silencing of dissent. I guess there are still some taboos even for those who support free speech. Hopefully, this paper will soon see how one-sided their own views have been on this subject.